ABUJA — Human rights lawyer and former Chairman of Nigeria’s National Human Rights Commission, Chidi Odinkalu, has raised the alarm over what he describes as an “optics crisis” in Nigeria’s judiciary, following the visit of a senior Supreme Court justice to Benin City—just days after the Edo State governorship election petition was transmitted to the apex court.
In a statement released on X (formerly Twitter) on Saturday titled “Concerning Judicial Integrity,” Odinkalu questioned the appropriateness of the justice’s presence at a social function in the same state where a politically sensitive case is pending.
“Only the wilful would miss the implications of that for optics of judicial impartiality,” Odinkalu wrote on X, formerly Twitter, where he posted a detailed thread expressing concern over what he described as “tone-deafness to judicial integrity.”
His remarks come during the burial week of Nigeria’s longest-serving Supreme Court justice and former Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), amid heightened public scrutiny of judicial independence in electoral adjudication.
Responding to those who defended the justice’s right to freedom of movement, Odinkalu argued that judicial integrity is not only about avoiding actual impropriety, but also the appearance of bias.
“Section 36(1) of the Constitution makes an independent and impartial judiciary a constitutional right. The constitutional standard is appearance of bias, not active bribery,” he said.
“Those who claim a judge can mix with anyone or go anywhere are either deliberately uninformed or wilfully illiterate.”
Citing the Judicial Code of Conduct issued by the National Judicial Council (NJC), Odinkalu emphasized that judges are bound to avoid situations that may cast doubt on their impartiality—even if no wrongdoing is committed.
“A Judicial Officer must avoid social relationships that are improper or may give rise to an appearance of impropriety or that may cast doubt on the ability… to decide cases impartially,” the Code reads (Rule 1.5).
He further argued that there is no constitutional right to be a judge, nor a duty to remain one if the demands of the office conflict with social commitments.
“A person who prizes their social networks above judicial office has a choice: they can resign from the bench in order to fully access the right ‘to enjoy’. That would be both honest and lawful.”
Describing judicial office as a divine trust, Odinkalu said society historically placed judges on a pedestal reserved for the sacred, hence the honorific ‘My Lord’. But that reverence, he noted, was built on an implicit understanding that judges would uphold unimpeachable ethical standards.
“This implicit bargain has now been retrenched in favour of judicial impunity,” he said. “Those who justify this want us to normalize the casualisation of judges. We refuse.”
Calling on the NJC and the Supreme Court’s leadership to act, Odinkalu insisted:
“Any judge, no matter how senior, who chooses to remain in office is bound by these standards. The provisions are clear. The leadership of @njcNig has a duty to ensure consequences for infractions that compromise perceptions of judicial integrity.”
He warned that the continued erosion of ethical boundaries could destabilize both democracy and the rule of law.
“The judiciary is too important to be ignored, and the Supreme Court is a shrine in whose sanctity every citizen must have an interest,” Odinkalu said. “It would be prudent for the leadership of the judiciary to police itself. To the extent that they have failed to do so, citizens must help and remind them.”
“We cannot behave as if our judiciary can be transformed by the force of impunity or wilful ignorance. On this, I hope, we can achieve critical consensus.”
By Gabriel Ani
